The influence that atheists, humanists
and agnostics have on the public school system

Home | Audio | Buy | Contact | Downloads | FAQ | Links | | TOC | Videos

We suspect that many parents are not aware of the profound influence that atheists, humanists and agnostics have on the curriculum being used in public schools today. In his recent book entitled Refuting Evolution, author Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D, F.M. exposes the anti-God agenda of the National Academy of Sciences in their new book entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. Listed below, are just two excerpts from Refuting Evolution that help to shine light on this important topic for parents, teachers and students alike.

Also see these links: Is the religion of secular humanism being taught in public school classrooms?

Public schools targeted for promotion of Humanism

From pages 20 - 21 of the book Refuting Evolution:

Many people do not realize that the teaching of evolution propagates an anti-biblical religion. The first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), signed by many prominent evolutionists, are:

1. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

2. Humanism believes that Man is a part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

This is exactly what evolution teaches. Many humanist leaders are quite open about using the public schools to proselytize their faith. This might surprise some parents who think the schools are supposed to be free of religious indoctrination, but this quote makes it clear:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level - preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism...

It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive. (10)


10. J. Dunphy, "A Religion for a New Age," The Humanist, Jan-Feb. 1983, 23, 26 (emphases added), cited by Wendell R. Bird, Origin of the Species - Revisited, vol. 2, p.257.

Atheists, humanists and agnostics influence curriculums

From pages 23 - 24 of the book Refuting Evolution:

A recent survey published in the leading science journal Nature conclusively showed that the National Academy of Sciences, the authors of Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, is heavily biased against God, rather than religiously unbiased (14). A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding: 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% agnostic, and only 7% believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists. It is likely that those who didn't respond were unbelievers as well, so the study probably underestimates the level of anti-God belief in the NAS. The percentage of unbelief is far higher than the percentage among U.S. scientists in general, or in the whole U.S. population.

Commenting on the professed religious neutrality of Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, the surveyors comment:

NAS President Bruce Alberts said: "there are very many outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists." Our research suggests otherwise. (15)


14. E. J. Larson and L. Witham, "Leading Scientists Still Reject God," Nature, 394(6691):313, July 23, 1998. The sole criterion for being classified as a "leading" or "greater" scientists was membership of the NAS.

15. Ibid., emphasis added.